439 U.S. 572 (1979)
Jess H. Hisquierdo and Angela Hisquierdo, who are California residents, were married in Nevada in 1958. They separated in 1972.1 In 1975 Jess Hisquierdo instituted a proceeding in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, for dissolution of the marriage.2
At the time of the proceedings Jess Hisquierdo was aged 55 and had worked from 1942 to 1975 for the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway before entering the employ of the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal.3 Angela Hisquierdo was aged 53 and had worked for the preceding eight years in a factory after 35 years of gainful employment, with an expectation of benefits under the Social Security Act upon retirement.4 The couple has no children.5 Both waived their claims to spousal support.6
In the divorce proceeding Angela Hisquierdo listed Jess Hisquierdo's expectation of receiving Railroad Retirement Act benefits as an item of community property subject to division.7 The Superior Court awarded petitioner the couple's home in which they had a $12,828 equity and its furnishings.8 Respondent was awarded an automobile and a small interest in a mutual fund.9 The court ordered petitioner to reimburse respondent by installment payments for her half of the equity in the home protected by a lien.10 The court ruled that no community interest existed in the railroad retirement benefits.11
The California Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment.12 The Supreme Court of California granted review and reversed. The question of remedy was left open for decision on remand.13 The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider whether the award impermissibly conflicts with the Railroad Retirement Act.14
Whether the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 prohibits the allocation and division of benefits under California's community property rules?15
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 preempts state community property laws attempting to allocate or divide an employee's expected benefits because 45 U.S.C. § 231m bars assignment, garnishment, attachment, or anticipation of benefits under any circumstances and 45 U.S.C. § 231d(c)(3) terminates a spouse's separate benefit upon absolute divorce, reflecting Congress's deliberate choice to designate the employee as the sole recipient.16
Yes. Angela Hisquierdo listed Jess Hisquierdo's expectation of Railroad Retirement Act benefits, earned in part during their marriage, as community property subject to division in the California dissolution proceeding.17 The Superior Court initially ruled no community interest existed.18 The California Supreme Court reversed to permit recognition of the interest and offsetting awards of other property.19
These state actions directly conflict with the Act's designation of the employee alone as recipient.20 They also conflict with its flat prohibition on anticipation.21 This applies to the facts of the 14-year marriage and the claimed 19.6 percent interest in future benefits.22
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 prohibits the allocation and division of benefits under California's community property rules.23
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justice Rehnquist
Justice Stewart dissented.24 He argued that the Railroad Retirement Act contains no express directive removing the benefits from the reach of California community property law.25 The asserted federal conflict is patched together from statutory provisions that have no relationship to substantive marital property rights.26
The anti-attachment provision in § 231m addresses only procedural remedies for creditors rather than substantive ownership interests between spouses.27 Under community property law the spouses are co-owners, not creditors.28 An offsetting award of other assets does not anticipate pension payments and creates no conflict with the statute.29
The federal provisions do not demonstrate a clear intent to displace traditional state marital property rules.30
Whether an award to a nonemployee spouse of an interest in expected Railroad Retirement Act benefits impermissibly conflicts with the Act under the Supremacy Clause?31
Under the Supremacy Clause, state family-property law must yield when it causes major damage to clear and substantial federal interests, and here the Railroad Retirement Act's detailed beneficiary designations and protective provisions establish such interests that an offsetting community-property award would injure by diminishing the employee's security and frustrating congressional allocation choices.32
Yes. Angela Hisquierdo sought either direct payments from Jess Hisquierdo's future benefits or an offsetting award of the couple's home equity and other property to compensate for her claimed community interest in those benefits.33 The California Supreme Court's reversal would have allowed such a remedy on remand.34 This would reduce the portion Congress reserved for the retired worker alone.35
It would discourage retirement.36 It would also penalize the employee in the event of death or departure from the industry before full vesting.37 These effects injure the federal interests protected by the Act.38
An award to a nonemployee spouse of an interest in expected Railroad Retirement Act benefits impermissibly conflicts with the Act under the Supremacy Clause.39